I finally got a chance to playtest my game, [Mexican Standoff] with the updated rules. As I said in my [other thread], twice I playtested the game, but both times the game failed due to a lack of turn structure.

This time it went pretty well. I played it with my usual group---Ron, Maura, Tod, and Julie. It took a minute or two get going, partly because I fell victim to the curse of the game designer. I explained the game from memory, and of course I forgot half the rules and had to interrupt the game to explain them as we went. This actually produced a funny moment. Someone, Ron maybe, asked, "Why did we put the money on the table?" "The winner gets to keep the money," I answered. "Ohhh..." and immediate, without saying a word, everyone pointed their gun at me and yelled, "Bang!" I ended up spending more of the game observing than playing, but since this was a playtest, I didn't mind. (Speaking of money, we each threw in $1.)

The game went pretty well. It lasted like 10-15 minutes, though I wasn't timing it so I can't be sure. That was what I was expecting and hoping for. The game ended up having a more coherent narrative than I thought it would. This might have been due to the group I was playing with. For some reason I was expecting it to be... err, more frantic and crazy than it was.

The turn structure worked OK. It was definitately functional, though maybe uninspiring. We didn't follow it as closely as we maybe should have. People butted in a few times without spending coins. This was partly because I did a lousy job explaining how it all worked, so the players weren't sure how it was suppose to work. But I must admit, the back and forth between players definitately had the feel I wanted, which means that maybe I need to tweak the rules.

Anyway, I was killed first (I was suppose to kill someone, too, but for some reason I forgot to enforce it). In the next round of shooting Julie and Tod were killed too. That left Ron and Maura. In the prisoner's dilemna that followed, they both shot each other, which meant that Tod, Julie, and myself got to keep the money.

The other thing I was a bit surprised about was that the group really wasn't motivated by the money. I'm curious to see if this was just something with my group, or if this becomes a widspread phenomonon.

Oh, Ron had an interesting idea. He said that if people wanted it to be more thematic, they could replace the money with some other (imaginary) item of importance. For example, he said that if we wanted to play Reservoir Dogs, you could replace the money with the hostage cop, and whoever lives gets to decide if he lives or dies. That's a cool idea (though there might be kinks that beed to get worked out.

Actually, I liked the money. Speaking for myself, I wanted to win the money, but in the larger context of the group and society and everything, I didn't care at all about having the money, afterwards. But its reality, as real money, sitting on the table, was a primary motivator.

Reading about Mexican Standoff I couldn't help thinking about Kablamo, a boardgame of Russian roulette produced by my good friends at Gigantoskop. This is the game Shannon Appelcline called "disgusting" at boardgamegeek.com. As far as I know, Shannon has never commented on their other two games Badaboom and Spank the Monkey.

I haven't read the earlier versions of the game, but would it be useful to codify the "unsportsmanlike" behavior in to actual rules? Something like, "You may not interrupt a player during the turn after they interrupt you," and "After a 'Bang!' you called has been cancelled, you may not call another 'Bang!' or interrupt the current player until the next turn," maybe?

I haven't read the earlier versions of the game, but would it be useful to codify the "unsportsmanlike" behavior in to actual rules? Something like, "You may not interrupt a player during the turn after they interrupt you," and "After a 'Bang!' you called has been cancelled, you may not call another 'Bang!' or interrupt the current player until the next turn," maybe?

I would have to see how it works in actual play, but I would hope that everyone basically knows this stuff from playing cards or tag or whatever. I'm sure everyone's code of ethics would vary a little, but I think I'm OK with that.

Actually, I liked the money. Speaking for myself, I wanted to win the money, but in the larger context of the group and society and everything, I didn't care at all about having the money, afterwards. But its reality, as real money, sitting on the table, was a primary motivator.

Ahh, in retrospect I see what you're saying. You and Maura were definitely gunning to win. I should ask Julie and Tod if they felt the same way, it's difficult for me to guess.